[Reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  the  Association  of  Engineering  Societies 
by  permission  of  the  Board  of  Managers.] 


Shop  and  Mill  Inspectors  and 
Their  Work. 


By  W.  O.  Henderer,  Member  of  Civil  Engineers’  Club  of  Cleveland. 


[Read  before  the  Club,  September  n,  1900.] 

Many  years  ago  certain  truths  were  expressed  by  a  noted 
public  speaker  from  which  there  originated  the  famous  motto, 
“Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty.”  By  changing  one  word, 
and  making  it  read  “Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  safety,”  the 
motto  is  rendered  no  less  true  and  trite,  for  in  this  world  of  ours 
every  man  must  be  vigilant  and  alive  to  his  own  interests  to  suc¬ 
ceed.  How  many  men  when  buying  any  article  or  commodity 
would  feel  that  they  were  secure  in  their  purchase  if  they  did  not, 
either  themselves  or  through  an  agent,  assure  themselves  that  they 
were  to  get  what  they  paid  for? 

Watch  the  careful  man  when  he  buys  a  pair  of  shoes,  for 
instance.  He  first  decides  just  what  he  wants,  then  he  goes  to  his 
dealer  and  states  his  wishes.  The  shoes  are  brought  forth ;  he 
looks  them  over,  and  if  they  are  good  shoes  and  of  the  quality  he 
desires  he  accepts  and  pays  for  them.  In  his  dealings  with  the 
shoe  man,  then,  his  procedure  covers  two  things, — specification  and 
inspection. 

So  it  is  when  a  man  or  a  corporation  buys  a  bridge,  a  building 
or  any  structure  containing  iron  or  steel.  The  careful  man  or 
corporation  is  vigilant  to  his  own  interests  and  safety  in  assuring 
himself  or  itself  that  every  detail  is  constructed  just  as  it  should 
be,  and  that  the  materials  are  of  the  quality  he  desires  and  pays 


2 


for.  To  this  end  plans  showing  just  what  is  wanted  and  specifica¬ 
tions  setting  forth  in  detail  the  method  of  construction  and  the 
quality  of  the  materials  and  workmanships  are  prepared.  This  is 
the  specification  part  of  the  dealings.  Then,  when  the  structure  is 
being  built,  the  purchaser  watches  it,  or  causes  it  to  be  watched,  to 
see  that  all  the  details  and  conditions  of  his  plans  and  specifications 
are  met  and  complied  with.  This  is  the  inspection  part  of  the  work. 

But  in  the  case  of  iron  or  steel  structures  no  cursory  examina¬ 
tion  can  truly  determine  whether  the  material  and  workmanship  is 
all  as  it  should  be.  No  scrutiny  of  a  finished  piece  of  iron  or  steel 
can  discover  whether  or  not  it  is  free  from  imperfections  in  its 
composition,  and  from  abuse  in  the  treatment  it  has  received  dur¬ 
ing  the  various  processes  in  the  manufacture  of  the  finished  parts 
of  the  structure  that  may  seriously  and  even  fatally  affect  its 
strength.  To  be  sure  that  he  is  getting  what  he  is  paying  for  the 
buyer  must  have  means  of  knowing  that  the  raw  materials  are  of 
good  quality ;  that  the  metal  when  rolled  contains  no  harmful  ingre¬ 
dients  in  dangerous  quantity ;  that  the  material  is  properly  handled, 
straightened  and  finished ;  that  the  various  processes  incident  to  its 
manufacture  into  bridge  or  other  structural  parts  are  all  properly 
and  conscientiously  done ;  that  the  parts  when  finished  are  all  of 
proper  size ;  that  they  are  painted  and  treated  as  they  should  be ; 
in  short,  he  must,  either  himself  or  by  a  representative  working  in 
his  interest,  follow  the  progress  of  the  material  from  the  ore  to  the 
finished  structure.  Then,  and  then  only,  can  he  be  reasonably  posi¬ 
tive  that  his  structure  is  what  he  desires  and  pays  for. 

Such  careful  attention  to  details  requires  that  some  one  be  at 
mills  at  all  times  when  material  is  being  rolled  for  the  work  in 
hand  to  conduct  the  tests  of  all  the  material  produced,  and  to 
measure  and  carefully  examine  the  bars  as  they  are  finished.  It 
requires  that  some  one  be  at  the  shops  during  the  manufacture  of 
the  parts  of  the  proposed  structure  from  the  material  received  from 
the  mills  to  see  that  all  the  details  of  the  treatment  it  receives  are 
in  accordance  with  the  specifications,  and  that  the  finished  parts  all 
comply  with  the  requirements  as  to  size  and  quality  of  workman¬ 
ship. 

Few  purchasers  can  look  after  such  things  personally.  They 
have  other  things  to  attend  to.  Engineers  and  architects  in  charge 
of  structures  have  all  they  can  do  to  superintend  the  other  parts  of 
the  work  in  hand.  The  matter  of  the  inspection  of  the  materials 
entering  into  them  is  a  detail  that  they  must  intrust  to  an  assistant, 
and  so  men  expert  in  this  particular  sort  of  superintendence  have 
become  useful  and  have  found  their  places  among  the  arts.  The 


3 


inspector  makes  it  his  business  to  fully  understand  all  the  various 
processes  and  their  results,  and  to  look  after  his  client’s  interests 
in  all  respects. 

There  was  a  time  when  one  man  could  comfortably  attend  to 
such  duties  himself,  and  personally  follow  the  progress  of  the 
material  in  all  its  various  processes.  The  shops  and  mills  at  which 
iron  was  manufactured  and  where  the  finished  parts  of  structures 
were  produced  were  often  one  and  the  same,  or,  if  not,  the  pro¬ 
cesses  followed  each  other  in  such  rotation  that  one  man  could  get 
from  mill  to  shop  and  keep  proper  consecutive  track  of  the  work. 
But  the  industry  has  of  late  years  grown  to  such  enormous  propor¬ 
tions  and  has  extended  over  such  a  large  area  that  it  is  impossible 
for  one  man  to  properly  inspect  the  work  in  all  its  stages.  Bridge 
companies  now  have  a  number  of  mills  from  which  to  order  the 
material  necessary  for  their  work.  They  are  likely  to  have  plates 
from  one  mill,  beams  and  channels  from  another  and  other  shapes 
from  still  a  third ;  and  the  mills  are  often  great  distances  apart. 
Frequently,  too,  the  shop  is  at  work  on  some  portions  of  a  contract 
while  the  mills  are  still  furnishing  materials.  It  is  manifestly  out 
of  the  question  for  any  one  man  to  thoroughly  inspect  work  at  all 
these  places  at  one  time.  He  must  have  assistance  in  some  way. 

Men  who  have  become  expert  and  experienced  in  this  sort  of 
work  have  made  inspection  their  particular  business,  performing 
this  service  at  a  compensation  based  on  the  tonnage  in  the  work, 
instead  of  entering  the  service  of  the  engineer  or  architect  in  charge 
at  a  salary.  Such  men,  as  they  found  it  impossible  to  economically 
perform  their  duties  personally  on  account  of  the  excessive  expenses 
of  traveling  about,  adopted  the  method  of  reciprocating  among 
themselves,  an  inspector  in  Pittsburg  undertaking  to  do  the  mill 
inspection  on  one  piece  of  work  for  another  located  in  Philadelphia, 
while  the  latter  attended  to  shop  inspection  at  shops  in  his  vicinity 
for  the  former.  Naturally,  from  such  alliances  among  inspectors, 
there  has  resulted  the  formation  of  inspection  bureaus  or  companies. 
Such  companies  employ  men  permanently  at  the  various  mills  and 
shops,  and  maintain  extensive  general  offices,  at  which  the  clerical 
work  of  copying  and  forwarding  reports  of  tests,  progress  of  work, 
etc.,  is  performed.  By  securing  large  quantities  of  inspection  .work 
they  are  able  to  keep  good  men  at  all  the  localities  necessary,  main¬ 
taining  a  perfect  system  of  effective  inspection  and  giving  their 
clients  regular  reports  of  the  quality  of  material  and  workmanship 
and  the  progress  of  the  work,  and  information  as  to  tests,  ship¬ 
ments,  etc.,  which,  when  completed,  comprises  an  accurate  record 
of  the  structure  in  question  and  surety  that  it  is  built  as  it  should  be. 


4 


Such  a  company,  to  be  effective  and  to  economically  perform 
good  service,  requires  the  most  careful  organization  among  its 
corps  of  inspectors  and  clerks.  Detailed  systems  for  the  handling 
of  such  work  have  been  adopted  by  some  companies  as  the  result 
of  much  study  and  experience,  and  the  inspection  of  various  classes 
of  work  for  clients  in  all  parts  of  this  country  and  abroad,  done  at 
mills  and  shops  in  all  the  centers  of  manufacture,  is  performed  with 
the  machine-like  regularity  and  uniformity  which  alone  is  the  safe¬ 
guard  against  mistakes,  lost  records  and  careless  work. 

The  following  brief  description  of  the  methods  adopted  by  the 
inspection  department  of  the  Osborn  Engineering  Company,  of 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  one  of  the  principal  inspection  bureaus  of  this 
country,  will  illustrate  the  care  taken  to  give  all  work  the  closest 
attention,  to  keep  track  of  its  employes  and  to  insure  the  best  results 
to  its  clients. 

When  the  contract  for  a  bridge  or  for  any  other  steel  or  iron 
structure  is  let  the  inspecting  company  and  the  contracting  bridge 
company  are  mutually  notified.  The  former  is  supplied  with  a 
copy  of  the  strain  sheet  and  general  plans  and  specifications.  These 
are  first  examined  at  the  inspecting  company’s  general  office,  and 
any  necessary  notes  made  of  special  features,  and  then  sent,  with 
instruction  slip  A  attached,  to  their  inspector  located  at  the  con¬ 
tractors’  shops.  When  the  bridge  company  places  its  orders  for 
material  with  the  various  mills  copies  of  these  orders  are  sent  to  the 
inspecting  bureau,  where  they  are  copied  in  duplicate  on  the  blanks 
C,  one  copy  of  which  is  sent,  with  instruction  slip  B  attached,  to  the 
inspectors  located  at  the  various  mills  where  the  material  is  to  be 
rolled.  The  weights  of  the  various  items  of  material  ordered  are 
estimated  and  entered  in  the  other  copy,  which  is  retained  at  head¬ 
quarters  for  future  reference. 

Each  mill  inspector  first  carefully  compares  his  copy  of  form 
C  with  the  mill  order  book,  to  see  that  no  changes  or  mistakes  have 
been  made  in  ordering.  As  fast  as  the  steel  is  manufactured  test 
specimens  are  taken  by  the  mill  inspectors  and  the  necessary  tests 
are  made,  the  report  of  tests  on  each  separate  blow  or  melt  of  steel 
being  sent  to  headquarters,  together  with  data  from  the  mill 
chemist’s  certified  report  of  chemical  analysis  on  the  inspector’s 
test  slip  D.  Drillings  are  also  taken,  when  required  or  deemed 
advisable,  from  the  test  pieces  and  sent  to  headquarters,  where 
check  analyses  are  made  in  order  to  test  the  accuracy  of  the  mill 
chemist.  The  test  slips  D  are  collected  at  the  general  office  and 
copied  on  the  test  report  blanks  E,  which,  after  press-copying,  are 
sent  to  the  engineer  or  architect.  While  the  material  is  being 


5 


rolled  into  the  shapes  ordered  the  inspector  is  constantly  on  hand, 
and  from  time  to  time  he  calipers  and  measures  the  pieces  to  see 
that  they  are  of  the  requisite  size  and  thickness.  He  sees  that  the 
bars  are  properly  straightened  and  cared  for  while  cooling,  and 
that  they  show  no  flaws  or  ragged  edges.  As  fast  as  each  bar  is 
inspected  and  found  satisfactory  he  strikes  into  it  a  distinguishing 
mark  of  the  inspecting  bureau  furnished  him  from  the  general 
office,  which  signifies  that  the  piece  has  satisfactorily  passed  his 
examination  and  is  composed  of  material  the  tests  of  which  have 
been  satisfactory.  The  stamp  he  uses,  besides  the  distinguishing 
mark  of  the  inspecting  company,  bears  a  number,  and  this  number 
is  recorded  in  the  general  office  against  his  name.  He  keeps  this 
stamp  closely  by  him  at  all  times,  so  that  there  can  never  be  any 
question  as  to  who  performed  the  inspection  on  any  piece  of  mate¬ 
rial.  He  keeps  his  general  office  informed  regarding  the  pieces  he 
has  inspected  from  day  to  day  on  any  one  piece  of  work  by  means 
of  the  report  F.  As  fast  as  the  material  is  shipped  from  the  mill 
he  forwards  to  the  general  office,  after  he  has  checked  them,  the 
tissue  copies  of  invoices  furnished  him  by  the  mill.  There  the 
items  and  weights  are  checked  against  those  on  his  report  F  and 
against  the  copy  of  form  C  retained  at  headquarters.  The  invoices 
are  then  copied  on  the  blank  G,  which  is  sent  to  the  engineer  or 
architect  after  press-copying. 

Thus  the  engineer  or  architect  in  charge  of  the  work  is  kept 
reliably  informed  just  what  material  has  been  rolled  and  shipped, 
and  he  knows  exactly  what  the  results  of  all  the  tests  performed  on 
the  material  have  been  and  what  powers  of  resistance  it  can  be 
expected  to  develop.  He  is  protected  from  any  fictitious  claims  of 
a  delinquent  bridge  company  of  delay  at  the  mills.  The  inspecting 
bureau  has  detailed  records  of  the  dates  on  which  inspection  was 
performed  on  any  lot  of  material,  and  is  protected  against  fictitious 
x claims  of  delay  in  the  inspection  of  material  at  the  mill. 

As  soon  as  the  material  begins  to  arrive  at  the  contractor’s 
shop  the  shop  inspector  located  there  begins  making  regular  weekly 
reports  on  the  work  in  hand  to  his  general  office.  He  has,  in  the 
meantime,  received  from  the  bridge  company  a  full  set  of  the  work¬ 
ing  drawings  of  the  structure.  He  has  carefully  checked  them 
against  the  general  plans  received  at  the  outset,  and  has  called  atten¬ 
tion  to  and  had  corrected  any  errors  in  them  or  differences  between 
them  and  the  general  plans  furnished  him  as  his  guide.  He  has 
also  made  a  careful  estimate  of  the  weights  of  the  various  finished 
parts,  and  a  list  of  all  the  parts  that  will  be  required  according  to 
the  contract. 


6 


It  is  his  duty  to  be  constantly  on  hand  about  the  shop  during 
the  progress  of  the  work,  watching  the  various  processes  and  see¬ 
ing  that  everything  is  done  according  to  the  specifications  that  have 
been  furnished  him.  He  sees  that  only  material  bearing  the  mill 
inspector’s  stamp  is  used,  and  that  it  has  arrived  from  the  mills  in 
good  condition.  By  watching  the  processes  thus  closely  he  is  not 
only  able  to  detect  faulty  work  which  would  be  covered  up  when 
the  piece  is  finished,  but  he  can  often  save  both  the  bridge  com¬ 
pany  and  his  employers  considerable  time  and  expense  by  noting 
mistakes  early,  while  they  may  still  be  corrected  readily  and  at 
little  cost.  When  a  piece  is  finished  he  makes  careful  final  exami¬ 
nation  of  it,  comparing  all  dimensions  with  the  plans,  testing  the 
riveting,  etc.  It  is  then  painted  under  his  superintendence,  and  he 
stamps  in  the  piece,  in  a  conspicuous  position,  a  similar  distinguish¬ 
ing  mark  to  that  used  by  the  mill  inspector  to  indicate  that  the  shop 
work  has  all  been  properly  done  and  that  the  piece  is  as  it  should 
be  in  every  respect. 

The  shop  inspector’s  weekly  reports  come  to  the  general  office 
in  three  forms,  H,  I,  and  J  being  respectively  his  report  of  material 
received  from  the  various  mills,  of  the  work  performed  on  the 
structure  in  the  shop  and  of  finished  pieces  shipped  from  the  shop 
to  their  destination  during  the  week.  Form  H  is  first  checked 
against  form  G,  and  then  the  three  forms  are  press-copied  and 
sent  to  the  engineer  or  architect.  The  method  of  reporting  the 
condition  of  the  various  members  of  a  structure  from  week  to  week 
on  form  I  may  require  more  detailed  explanation.  The  first 
column,  headed  “ required,”  shows  the  number  of  pieces  of  a  par¬ 
ticular  mark  required.  The  number  in  this  column  remains  con¬ 
stant  from  beginning  to  end.  The  other  columns  show  what  stage 
in  the  process  of  manufacture  each  piece  has  reached  each  wetk. 
Thus  in  a  bridge  there  may  be  four  end  posts  required  marked  aB. 
The  figure  4  would  then  appear  in  each  report  in  the  first  column. 
One  week  there  might  be  a  4  in  the  third  column,  a  4  in  the  fifth 
and  a  2  in  the  next  to  last,  showing  that  all  wefe  assembled,  all 
riveted  and  two  finished  awaiting  shipment.  When  the  same 
figure  appears  in  the  last  column  as  in  the  first  all  the  pieces  of  that 
kind  have  been  shipped,  and  when  all  the  pieces  required  for  the 
work  are  shown  in  the  last  column  the  material  has  all  been  finished 
and  is  on  its  way  to  its  destination. 

For  every  shipment  of  material  copies  of  the  shipping  bills, 
giving  the  itemized  scale  weights  of  the  material  on  each  car,  are 
furnished  the  inspector  by  the  bridge  company.  He  first  makes  a 
note  of  these  items  and  weights,  checking  them  against  his  list  of 


7 

parts  required  to  complete  the  wprk  and  the  estimated  weights  he 
has.  He  then  sends  the  bills  to  the  general  office,  where  they  are 
copied  on  form  K,  which,  after  press-copying,  is  sent  to  the  engi¬ 
neer  or  architect.  Reports  of  tests  of  full  sized  eye-bars  for  bridges 
are  made  out  on  the  blank  L,  press-copied  and  sent  to  the  engi¬ 
neer.  Form  M  is  similarly  used  for  reporting  results  of  tests  of 
cast  iron. 

When  a  job  is  finished  a  final  report  is  sent  to  the  engineer  or 
architect,  stating  briefly  the  work  that  has  been  done  and  noting 
any  unusual  features  that  have  developed  during  the  inspection  of 
the  material  or  cases  where  material  was  rejected.  This  report 
usually  includes  a  summarized  statement  of  the  weights  of  the 
finished  parts,  comparing  the  estimated  with  the  actual  scale 
weights  to  show  whether  the  various  parts  have  been  accurately 
proportioned  in  accordance  with  the  drawings,  and  also  a  state¬ 
ment  of  the  shipments  made,  giving  dates  of  shipment,  car  num¬ 
bers  and  initials  and  weights. 

The  engineer  or  architect  then  has  a  complete  record  of  the 
material  used  on  his  work,  the  dates  on  which  the  shipments  were 
made  from  mills  to  shop  and  complete  records  of  its  progress 
through  the  shop  and  of  the  shipments  from  the  shop  to  the  building 
site.  With  the  exception  of  the  slips  and  form  D,  all  the  reports 
and  blanks  used  are  uniformly  of  letter  size  and  printed  on  thin 
paper.  They  are  thus  in  the  best  possible  shape  for  filing,  and  do 
not  make  an  unnecessarily  bulky  package.  The  final  report  em¬ 
bodies  all  the  points  necessary  for  ordinary  cases  of  future  refer¬ 
ence.  The  inspecting  company  has  not  only  duplicates  of  all  these 
documents  carefully  preserved,  but  all  the  detailed  information  of 
all  kinds  relating  to  the  work  are  carefully  filed  with  the  copies  of 
reports,  correspondence,  etc.,  and  stored  safely  away,  thus  form¬ 
ing  an  additional  safeguard  against  loss  of  records.  If  at  any  time 
in  the  future  information  should  be  wanted  concerning  the  work, 
if  repairs  are  to  be  made,  or  if  any  question  arises  as  to  the  strength 
of  the  structure,  the  inspecting  bureau  can  furnish  the  information 
if  necessary. 

One  other  of  this  company’s  many  forms  may  be  interesting. 
Form  N  is  a  blank  form  of  diary  furnished  to  all  its  employes, 
wherever  located.  The  employes  are  required  to  keep  thereon  a 
concise  diary  of  their  doings  and  movements,  and  note  the  time 
spent  and  expenses  chargeable  on  each  piece  of  work.  At  the  end 
of  each  period  these  are  sent  to  the  general  office,  where  they  are 
checked  over  and  the  time  and  expenses  of  each  man  entered 
against  each  job.  The  company  thus  has  a  pretty  good  check  on 


8 


each  man  as  to  whether  or  not  he  is  attending  to  his  duty  and 
spending  proper  time  on  each  piece  of  work  allotted  to  him. 

The  employment  of  competent  inspecting  bureaus  becomes  more 
and  more  general  as  the  iron  and  steel  industry  increases  in  volume 
and  competition  between  the  manufacturers  grows  keener.  Men 
are  realizing  more  and  more  forcibly  the  necessity  for  such  services 
in  order  to  insure  good  results.  The  day  when  people  thought  that 
because  a  bridge  was  built  of  iron  it  would  stand  indefinitely  and 
support  any  loads  that  might  be  imposed  is  past  and  gone.  Men 
are  finding  that  there  are  good  and  bad  iron  and  steel,  and  that 
there  is  so  great  a  difference  between  them — often  the  difference 
between  success  and  failure,  between  a  strong,  stiff  and  durable 
structure  and  an  accident  costing  human  life — that  it  pays  to 
spend  the  small  added  cost  to  insure  the  use  of  the  good  material 
and  to  detect  and  exclude  the  bad.  Nearly  all  the  best  structures 
built  to-day  are  manufactured  under  the  watchful  eyes  of  inspec¬ 
tors  employed  to  see  that  the  provisions  of  the  specifications  are 
strictly  followed. 

But,  unfortunately,  this  class  comprises  by  no  means  all  the 
structures  built.  There  are  great  quantities  of  iron  and  steel 
structural  material  produced  and  made  into  bridges,  buildings  and 
other  structures  on  which  human  life  depends  that  are  not  so  in¬ 
spected,  and  concerning  which  the  purchasers  have  no  assurance 
as  to  their  strength  or  durability  because  they  have  no  knowledge 
of  the  quality  of  the  material  or  of  the  treatment  it  has  received 
during  its  manufacture.  Thousands  of  tons  of  steel  are  annually 
manufactured  and  sold  to  people  who  have  no  way  of  knowing 
anything  about  its  quality.  Hundreds  of  bridges  and  buildings  are 
built  every  year  out  of  such  material,  and  no  one  can  tell  whether 
or  not  they  will  actually  stand  the  strains  they  are  intended  to  stand. 
Is  the  general  public  to  blame  when  it  assumes  that  such  a  struc¬ 
ture  is  capable  of  successfully  withstanding  the  loads  and  shocks 
it  is  called  on  to  resist  ?  Can  a  man  do  otherwise  when  he  enters  a 
building  or  crosses  a  bridge  than  place  confidence  in  the  care  and 
thoroughness  with  which  its  architect  or  engineer  has  attended  to 
all  the  details  of  its  construction?  Accidents  happen,  much  more 
frequently  than  they  should,  that  are  traceable  to  bad  material  or 
workmanship;  generally  both.  If  the  structure  that  collapsed  had 
been  inspected  by  competent  men  such  accidents  would  not  have 
occurred.  There  is  yet  to  be  recorded  a  single  case  where  a  struc¬ 
ture  properly  inspected  by  inspectors  who  know  their  business  and 
do  it  honestly  has  failed  under  the  loads  it  was  designed  to  carry, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  engineers  and  architects 


9 


who  can  testify  to  important  saving  of  time  and  money  through 
the  employment  of  competent  inspectors. 

It  is  remarkable  that  so  many  fail  to  see  that  specification  and 
inspection  must  always  go  hand  in  hand;  that  neither  can  confer 
the  benefits  it  should  without  the  other.  Most  people  realize  that 
if  no  specifications  are  stated  to  indicate  the  nature  and  quality  of 
the  structure  desired  the  manufacturer  cannot  be  blamed  if  the 
structure  does  not  meet  the  expectations  of  the  purchaser.  But 
often  little  thought  is  given  to  the  second  part  of  the  purchaser’s 
duty,  that  of  inspection.  It  is  not  recognized  as  a  duty  owed  by 
every  purchaser  for  his  own  protection  and  safety,  and  to  secure 
benefits  from  a  carefully  compiled  specification.  When  the  millen¬ 
nium  is  reached,  when  it  may  be  reasonably  expected  that  every 
man’s  work  will  be  perfect  and  each  one’s  labor  as  valuable  as  that 
of  his  fellows,  then  there  will  be  no  difference  between  good  and 
bad,  no  possibility  of  errors  or  mistakes  or  dishonesty.  When  that 
time  arrives  there  will  be  no  further  use  for  either  specifications  or 
inspection,  and  many  a  busy  man  wifi  lose  his  job.  But  until  that 
time  there  will  be  varying  grades  in  the  quality  of  materials  and 
workmanship,  and  the  necessity  for  specifying  the  grade  desired 
on  any  piece  of  work  will  remain.  And  just  so  long  as  there  is  any 
cause  or  reason  for  specifications,  just  so  long  will  the  inspector  be 
needed  to  see  that  the  specifications  are  carried  out. 

There  are  various  reasons  advanced  why  such  inspection  service 
is  not  employed.  Most  of  them  may  be  classified  under  the  four 
classes  discussed  below. 

First.  Some  believe  that  by  placing  their  work  with  the  best- 
known  bridge  companies  they  are  so  sure  of  satisfactory  results 
that  no  check  on  the  quality  of  the  work  turned  out  is  necessary, 
and  that  by  availing  themselves  of  such  a  check  they  are  casting 
unpleasant  reflections  on  the  honesty  of  the  bridge  company.  This 
is  far  from  a  correct  view  of  the  case.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the 
integrity  of  the  bridge  company  or  of  its  management;  they  may 
have  the  best  of  intentions.  But  what  of  the  many  men  through 
whose  hands  or  under  whose  eyes  the  tons  of  material  must  pass  in 
its  progress  from  the  ore  to  the  finished  structure,  each  one  of  whom 
leaves  upon  it,  for  better  or  worse,  the  results  of  his  work.  Each 
man  will  look  to  his  own  personal  interests  first.  It  matters  not 
to  him  if  the  material  suffers,  so  long  as  he  can  save  himself  from 
the  consequences  of  the  discovery  of  his  bad  work.  Besides,  it  is 
human  nature  for  a  man  to  underrate  an  error  made  by  himself. 
His  judgment  is  warped  by  his  financial  interest,  and  he  is  apt  to 
think  “it  is  good  enough.”  Thus  when  a  man  makes  a  mistake  or 


IO 


botches  a  piece  of  work  he  is  tempted  to  hide  his  error  in  order  that 
his  reputation  with  his  foreman  may  not  suffer.  He  knows  that 
each  error  made  and  discovered  lowers  his  value  in  his  employer’s 
estimation.  Frequently  employes  are  paid  by  the  piece  or  ton, 
the  workman  then  becoming  practically  a  sub-contractor  with  no 
interest  in  the  work  beyond  doing  it  well  enough  to  get  his  pay  for 
it.  His  interest  lies  in  doing  a  large  amount  of  work;  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  quantity  even  at  the  expense  of  quality. 

Foremen,  and  even  superintendents,  will  frequently  pass  flaws 
and  errors  that  their  reputation  for  executive  ability  may  be  main¬ 
tained.  A  manufacturing  firm  looks  to  its  superintendent  for 
results.  Time  taken  to  correct  mistakes  or  replace  faulty  material 
means  decrease  of  output,  and  if  the  output  decreases  cost  increases 
and  the  superintendent  must  explain.  So  the  work  is  hurried 
through  the  shop  with  speed  of  completion  the  principal  end  in 
view,  and  if  the  foreman  or  his  superintendent  notices  a  defect  he 
is  tempted  to  let  it  pass  for  the  sake  of  keeping  up  the  rate  of  out¬ 
put  and  saving  the  expense  and  time  of  correcting  it. 

It  is  often  easy  in  walking  through  a  bridge  shop  to  tell  at  a 
glance  which  of  the  various  pieces  of  work  in  progress  are  in  an 
inspector’s  caxe  and  which  are  not.  The  difference  is  often  ap¬ 
parent  to  a  casual  observer.  Some  bridge  companies  make  it  a 
rule  to  mark  plainly  on  all  their  working  drawings  whether  the 
work  is  to  be  inspected  or  not,  and  by  whom.  In  this  way  the 
workmen  have  the  best  of  means  of  estimating  the  chances  of  bad 
work  passing  unnoticed.  The  excuse  is  sometimes  made  by  a  shop 
foreman  when  a  blunder  or  careless  workmanship  is  brought  to 
his  attention  by  an  inspector,  “I  was  not  told  that  this  piece  of 
work  was  to  pass  inspection.” 

Some  shops  maintain  on  their  pay  rolls  an  inspector  whose  duty 
it  is  to  examine  the  work  as  it  comes  from  the  shop  and  report 
errors.  His  duty  is  performed  when  the  work  is  finished ;  he  has 
no  jurisdiction  in  the  shop  while  it  is  going  on.  Errors  committed 
and  covered  up  are  beyond  his  detection,  and  he  assumes  that  they 
do  not  exist.  But  even  as  regards  the  errors  that  may  be  dis¬ 
covered  after  a  piece  is  finished,  it  is  human  nature  for  such  a  man 
to  consult  his  own  interests  first  and  to  perform  his  work  in  such  a 
manner  as  best  to  serve  the  interests  of  the  people  to  whom  he  looks 
for  his  pay.  When  he  discovers  a  mistake  in  the  fitting  together  of 
pieces,  rivet  holes  left  out  of  joints,  or  such  like  errors,  he  will 
report  them,  because  he  knows  it  will  cost  his  employers  much  more 
to  correct  them  in  the  field  when  they  erect  the  structure  than  at 
the  shop  before  the  material  is  shipped  to  its  destination.  But  he 


will  be  indulgent  in  such  matters  as  loose  rivets,  buckled  web 
plates,  unannealed  forged  members,  careless  painting  and  the 
details  of  construction  that  may  be  either  good  or  bad  without  of 
a  certainty  causing  his  employers  trouble  later.  He  casts  his  lot 
in  with  the  rest  and  risks  the  results,  and  that  such  risks  are  run 
let  accidents  on  record  bear  testimony. 

Such  an  inspector  is  generally  some  man  taken  from  the  shop ; 
some  good  mechanic  who  can  read  a  drawing  and  make  an  accurate 
measurement.  He  is  paid  little  if  any  more  than  the  men  who  are 
doing  the  work  he  is  called  upon  to  examine,  and  he  draws  his  pay 
from  the  same  window  and  standing  in  the  same  line  with  his 
fellows.  He  probably  belongs  to  the  same  labor  union,  and  is 
closely  associated  at  all  times  with  the  very  men  who  are  laying 
out  the  work,  punching  the  holes  and  driving  the  rivets.  It  would 
not  be  good  policy  for  him  to  be  the  cause  of  too  frequent  scoring 
of  such  men.  It  might  be  dangerous  for  him  to  be  the  cause  of 
their  discharge. 

As  to  reflections  on  the  honesty  of  a  bridge  company  cast  by 
the  employment  of  expert  inspectors  by  the  architect  or  engineer, 
no  company  honestly  trying  to  do  good  work  has  such  a  feeling. 
If  the  inspector  knows  his  business  he  will  not  interfere  with  the 
men  at  their  work,  nor  will  he  cause  the  company  unnecessary 
trouble  in  any  way.  He  will  be  quick  to  detect  errors  and  see  to 
their  correction ;  often  his  experience  will  be  of  material  benefit 
to  the  foreman  in  suggesting  the  best  method  of  making  the  cor¬ 
rection.  The  inspector  relieves  the  men  from  many  cares  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties,  and  the  bridge  company  that  has 
nothing  to  fear  from  the  inspector  will  welcome  him  to  the  shop 
because  he  helps  them  to  see  that  their  work  is  done  in  the  best 
possible  manner  and  to  keep  up  their  standard  of  perfection  in  the 
structures  they  manufacture. 

A  few  years  ago  a  bridge  was  built,  shipped  to  its  destination 
by  the  bridge  company  and  nearly  erected  before  it  was  discovered 
that  certain  important  parts  necessary  to  complete  it  had  been  over¬ 
looked  ;  had  never  been  made  in  fact.  It  was  during  the  freshet 
season,  and  to  save  the  bridge  from  being  washed  away  temporary 
members  were  devised  on  the  ground  and  the  span  fortunately 
swung  before  the  falsework  went  out.  When  the  missing  parts 
arrived  new  falsework  had  to  be  built,  the  span  jacked  up  and  dis¬ 
connected  and  the  new  members  inserted.  Such  blunders  as  this 
cost  money.  An  inspector  who  knows  his  business  and  diligently 
attends  to  it  can  be  the  means  of  avoiding  such  blunders,  and  not 
only  of  saving  his  employers  time  and  trouble,  but  of  saving  the 
bridge  company  from  the  expensive  results  of  errors. 


12 


Second.  Some  think  that  the  extra  cost  of  inspection  adds  too 
much  to  the  cost  of  the  work.  They  prefer  to  pay  the  bridge  com¬ 
pany  its  price  and  run  the  risk  of  getting  a  poor  job  in  return, 
rather  than  pay  a  slight  excess  to  an  inspecting  firm  and  have  as¬ 
surance  that  they  are  getting  good  work.  They  willingly  pay  a 
liberal  premium  in  the  stock  market  for  bonds  of  good  repute, 
rather  than  buy  others  for  less  money.  And  yet  is  it  not  cheaper 
to  pay  $102  for  an  article  known  to  be  worth  $100  than  to  pay  $100 
for  an  article  that  may  not  be  worth  $75  ?  The  cost  of  inspection, 
by  competent  experts  who  make  it  their  duty  to  watch  every  detail 
of  the  manufacture  and  check  all  the  plans  to  see  that  everything 
has  been  done  as  the  architect  or  engineer  intended  it  should  be 
done,  should  not  exceed  2  per  cent,  of  the  total  cost  of  the  steel 
work.  Is  such  a  percentage  a  high  rate  of  premium  to  pay  for 
the  sake  of  security? 

Not  only  is  good  inspection  worth  what  it  costs  to  the  owner 
of  a  structure  on  account  of  the  security  he  is  warranted  in  feeling 
as  to  its  efficiency,  but  it  is  a  duty  owed  by  every  corporation  own¬ 
ing  structures  on  which  human  life  depends  to  take  every  possible 
precaution  to  secure  the  safety  of  such  structures.  It  is  a  good 
thing  for  a  railroad  manager  to  have  inspectors’  reports  on  file  con¬ 
cerning  his  bridges.  In  case  of  accident  to  any  bridge,  and  the 
often  resulting  damage  suits,  one  of  the  first  questions  asked  will 
be,  “Did  you  have  your  work  inspected,  and  by  whom  was  the 
inspection  performed?”  Several  recent  suits  resulting  from  acci¬ 
dents  to  bridges  and  buildings  have  developed  the  fact  that  no 
competent  inspecting  bureau  had  been  employed  during  the  con¬ 
struction,  and  the  testimony  has  in  every  case  reflected  very  un¬ 
pleasantly  on  the  carelessness  or  gross  neglect  of  the  engineer  or 
architect. 

Not  long  ago,  in  the  construction  of  a  railroad,  a  bridge  was 
required  across  a  certain  stream.  The  railroad  company  had  faith 
in  the  bridge  company  to  whom  the  work  was  let,  and  saved  the 
extra  cost  of  inspection.  That  bridge  collapsed  within  three 
months  after  its  completion.  Subsequent  examination  showed  that 
not  only  was  the  work  built  at  the  very  lowest  limit  of  safety  as 
regards  design,  but  the  material  was  dangerously  high  in  phos¬ 
phorus.  Careless  shop  work  was  admitted,  resulting  in  the  punch¬ 
ing  of  clover-leaf  rivet  holes ;  and,  to  crown  all,  a  mistake  in  mark¬ 
ing  the  pieces  had  resulted  in  the  interchange  of  members,  a  light 
one  being  placed  where  the  strain  sheet  called  for  a  much  heavier 
one  and  vice  versa.  That  accident  cost  the  lives  of  three  men,  to 
say  nothing  of  delays  and  expense  in  replacing  the  structure.  Yet 


:3 


the  railroad  company  justly  felt  itself  lucky,  for  an  excursion  train 
had  passed  over  the  bridge  but  a  short  time  before.  It  is  remark¬ 
able,  but  not  at  all  surprising  when  the  truth  is  known,  what  a  large 
proportion  of  the  accidents  occur  to  new  structures. 

Third.  A  common  claim  by  the  bridge  company  to  the  archi¬ 
tect  or  engineer,  to  influence  him  against  the  employment  of  an 
inspector,  is  that  there  will  result  serious  delay  in  the  completion 
of  the  work,  owing  to  the  time  required  for  the  “perfunctory” 
duties  of  the  inspector.  Extraordinary  claims  along  this  line  are 
sometimes  made  on  the  part  of  a  bridge  company  after  work  is 
completed,  and  the  inspector  is  called  upon  to  explain  why  the 
delay  was  caused.  Such  explanation  is  seldom  necessary  from  a 
competent  bureau,  because,  in  the  first  place,  the  regular  reports  of 
the  bureau  will  show  the  rate  of  progress  of  each  piece  through  the 
shops  and  just  where  and  when  and  how  any  delay  was  caused  by 
any  one  or  by  any  cause.  In  general,  however,  the  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  bridge  company  is  pertinent,  for  the  bridge  company 
making  such  claim  generally  has  reasons  of  its  own  for  making 
such  statements,  and  it  will  generally  be  found  that  at  such  shops 
delays  are  actually  caused  by  the  inspector  on  account  of  the  time 
required  to  replace  faulty  material  or  workmanship  which  he 
rejects,  and  which  but  for  his  offices  would  be  incorporated  into  the 
work  to  its  great  detriment. 

Such  delays  are  aggravating  no  doubt,  especially  when  it  is  im¬ 
portant  that  the  work  be  finished  in  the  shortest  possible  time. 
But  it  is  obviously  unjust  to  blame  the  delays  to  the  inspector. 
The  delay  may  mean  considerable  loss  to  the  purchaser,  but  he  can 
far  better  afford  such  loss  than  risk  the  consequences  of  faulty 
material  or  workmanship.  And  in  any  case  where  time  is  of  great 
importance  and  a  limit  of  time  is  agreed  to  by  the  bridge  company 
for  the  completion  of  the  work,  any  delay  of  this  kind  is  directly 
chargeable  to  the  company  that  undertook  to  furnish  the  materials 
and  perform  the  work  according  to  the  prescribed  standard  within 
the  prescribed  time.  It  is  certainly  not  to  the  inspector’s  interest 
to  delay  the  completion  of  the  work.  He  is  paid  for  his  services 
by  the  ton,  and  the  sooner  the  work  is  finished  the  greater  will  be 
his  profit. 

Fourth.  It  is  claimed  by  many  that  inspection  as  it  is  gener¬ 
ally  conducted  is  not  effective ;  that  the  work  is  performed  in  so 
careless  and  slipshod  a  manner  as  to  be  void  of 'the  benefits  it  is 
intended  to  confer,  and  that  money  spent  for  inspection  is  practi¬ 
cally  thrown  away. 


14 


Unfortunately,  this  has  been  but  too  true  in  the  past.  Inspec¬ 
tors  worked  carelessly  and  without  system.  Points  which  should 
have  been  detected  were  overlooked,  and  much  of  the  work  they 
were  supposed  to  do  was  not  done  at  all,  or  was  so  poorly  done  as 
to  afford  but  little  protection  to  the  engineer  or  architect.  Even 
now  there  are  many  who  are  performing  their  work  in  this  careless 
way;  undertaking  to  inspect  a  piece  of  work  for  about  half  what 
good  inspection  costs,  and  then  giving  the  work  what  attention 
they  can  afford  for  the  price  and  no  more. 

Mr.  J.  A.  L.  Waddell,  one  of  the  foremost  bridge  and  struc¬ 
tural  engineers  of  this  country,  has  had  his  own  troubles  with 
inspectors,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  extracts  from  Chap¬ 
ter  XXI  of  his  excellent  little  book,  “De  Pontibus.”  That  whole 
chapter  is  full  of  interest  in  this  connection,  and  will  well  repay 
careful  reading.  Mr.  Waddell  says,  “For  many  years  most  of  the 
inspection  of  structural  metal  work  was  a  sad  farce,  and  in  conse¬ 
quence  the  general  public  placed  but  little  confidence  in  inspection, 
with  the  result  that  a  large  portion  of  the  bridge  work  of  the 
country  was  left  entirely  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  manufac¬ 
turers.  Latterly,  however,  owing  to  the  efforts  of  a  few  first-class 
inspecting  bureaus,  the  status  of  inspection  has  been  somewhat 
improved,  although  it  is  far  from  being  to-day  what  it  ought  to  be. 

“The  inspection  business  has  been  utterly  demoralized  in  times 
past,  for  it  was  the  general  custom,  and  is  yet  to  a  certain  extent 
with  some  inspectors,  to  take  contracts  for  inspection  at  whatever 
figures  the  purchasers  are  willing  to  pay,  then  handle  the  work  so 
as  not  to  lose  money  on  the  contract,  regardless,  of  course,  of  the 
interests  of  their  employers. 

“Strange  tales  concerning  inspection  come  to  the  ears  of  engi¬ 
neers,  such,  for  instance,  as  passing  carload  after  carload  of  metal 
work  that  was  not  seen  by  the  inspector  until  after  loading  for 
shipment;  but  such  tales  need  verification,  which  of  course  it  is 
nobody’s  business  to  give  them.  In  one  case  in  the  author’s  experi¬ 
ence  the  inspector  left  his  work  for  ten  days  in  charge  of  one  of 
the  bridge  company’s  shipping  clerks,  without  notifying  either  the 
author  or  his  direct  employers,  the  inspection  bureau,  of  his  con¬ 
templated  absence.  Such  actions  as  this  make  one  entertain  doubts 
sometimes  as  to  whether  inspection  really  pays.’’ 

Mr.  Waddell  evidently  believes  that  inspection  by  competent 
bureaus  does  pay  after  all,  since  he  is  one  of  the  most  careful  engi¬ 
neers  to  see  that  all  his  work  is  inspected  and  that  the  rigid  require¬ 
ments  of  his  specifications  are  strictly  followed.  But  he  is  just  as 
careful  in  the  choice  of  his  inspectors. 


i5 


There  are  a  few  inspecting  bureaus  who  are  striving  for  the 
improvement  of  inspection  services,  through  the  establishment  of 
carefully  devised  systems  for  the  thorough  handling  of  the  work 
and  the  employment  of  only  experienced  and  thoroughly  reliable 
men.  Such  companies  can  and  do  give  the  quality  of  service  that 
makes  inspection  thoroughly  valuable.  But  they  have  thus  far 
found  themselves  seriously  handicapped  by  the  many  irresponsible 
inspectors  who  undertake  work  at  ridiculously  low  prices  without 
any  idea  of  doing  it  as  it  should  be  done.  Engineers  and  archi¬ 
tects  are  not  a  little  to  blame  for  this  state  of  things,  since  too  many 
of  them  fail  to  consider  the  inspection  service  as  one  having  degrees 
of  quality.  They  have  become  accustomed  to  consider  that  all  in¬ 
spection  is  the  same,  and  to  require  that  each  inspector  who  makes 
application  for  their  work  shall  submit  his  prices  in  competition 
with  any  one  else  who  may  be  an  applicant,  and  then  employ  the 
man  with  the  lowest  price  without  taking  the  trouble  to  properly 
investigate  the  comparative  facilities  or  reputations  of  the  appli¬ 
cants. 

It  cannot  be  expected  that  the  best  results  of  inspection  will  be 
gained  by  crowding  the  price  for  such  services  down  to  the  lowest 
possible  figure.  There  is  a  limit  below  which  good  inspection  can¬ 
not  be  performed.  The  only  way  in  which  an  engineer  can  get  the 
full  benefit  that  inspection  can  confer  is  to  determine  at  the  outset 
to  pay  a  fair  price  for  that  service,  and  then,  before  appointing  an 
inspecting  firm,  to  look  carefully  into  the  reputations  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  inspecting  companies  available  by  references  to  other  engi¬ 
neers  and  to  pieces  of  work  that  have  been  inspected  by  them. 

Thorough  and  complete  inspection  of  iron  and  steel  structural 
material  should  generally  be  worth  one  dollar  per  net  ton  of  shop 
shipping  weights.  At  times  and  under  especially  favorable  condi¬ 
tions  as  regards  the  location  of  a  bureau’s  employes,  it  can  be  done 
for  less.  On  some  small  jobs  it  may  be  more,  but  there  is  in 
general  a  chance  for  the  inspector  to  make  a  fair  living  at  that 
average  price.  Such  inspection  should  include  the  careful  com¬ 
parison  and  checking  of  working  plans  and  complete  supervision 
and  tests  by  thoroughly  experienced,  expert  and  reliable  men 
throughout  the  manufacture  of  the  material  from  the  time  it  is  first 
produced  until  it  is  shipped  from  the  shop. 

The  most  experienced  engineers  and  architects  already  realize 
that  only  first-class  inspection  is  valuable.  These  are  taking  pains 
to  see  that  only  first-class  men  are  employed  by  them,  and  at  a  fair 
price.  Inspection  bureaus  who  enjoy  the  patronage  of  such  men 
are  doing  all  their  work  the  best  they  know  how,  and  are  fondly 


i6 

hoping  for  the  dawn  of  the  day  when  the  general  public  will  recog¬ 
nize  the  value  of  the  efficient  service  so  rendered. 

Good  and  thorough  inspection  can  be  had,  but  not  at  the  low 
prices  at  which  so  many  seem  to  think  it  should  be  done.  If  com¬ 
plete  inspection,  as  above  defined,  is  worth  one  dollar  per  ton,  it* 
cannot  be  expected  that  the  man  who  refuses  to  pay  that  price  will 
get  such  inspection. 

Much  of  the  success  or  failure  of  inspection  depends  on  the 
individual  ability  and  character  of  the  inspector.  Good  inspectors 
are  not  easy  to  find,  and  when  found  they  are  worth  more  than  the 
cheap  bureaus  can  afford  to  pay  them.  A  successful  inspector  must 
have  a  rare  combination  of  good  qualities.  He  must  be  a  practical 
man,  with  long  training  in  mills  and  shops.  He  must  thoroughly 
understand  all  the  details  of  the  various  processes  employed,  and 
what  are  the  various  faults  that  are  liable  to  result  from  each 
process.  He  must  so  well  understand  these  faults  as  to  be  able  to 
detect  them  at  once,  and  he  must  be  so  well  informed  as  to  know 
how  best  to  correct  them  in  the  most  practical  manner,  and  when 
correction  is  not  possible.  But  experience  in  mill  and  shop  practice 
alone  will  not  suffice.  He  must  also  understand  enough  of  struc¬ 
tural  engineering  to  recognize  the  relative  advantages  of  different 
details  and  designs.  He  must  be  able  to  figure  out  the  strength  of 
the  various  connections  and  parts,  and  have  accurate  judgment  to 
determine  just  what  effect  a  loose  rivet  here  or  a  bad  fit  there  may 
have  in  the  resulting  structure.  He  must  be  quick  to  think  and 
act,  for  he  is  the  umpire  and  his  decisions  must  be  prompt  and  fair 
if  they  are  to  be  respected.  He  must,  withal,  be  a  good  deal  of  a 
diplomat.  The  inspector  who  cannot  deal  with  each  mill  and  shop 
foreman  in  the  way  to  best  command  his  respect  and  secure  his 
co-operation  will  never  make  a  success.  And,  above  all,  he  must 
be  a  man  of  sterling  character,  straightforward,  upright  and 
honest.  His  is  a  position  of  no  slight  trust,  and  he  must  prove 
himself  at  all  times  truly  worthy  of  that  trust. 

The  inspector’s  life  is  not  all  sunshine.  He  has  many  a  dis¬ 
agreeable  duty,  and  unless  he  has  the  necessary  judgment  and 
diplomacy  there  will  be  much  friction  between  him  and  the  men  in 
charge  of  the  mills  and  shops  where  his  work  is  located.  But  a 
good,  sensible  man,  with  the  qualities  of  a  good  inspector,  will  gain 
his  points  without  engendering  bad  feeling ;  will  get  over  the  rough 
places  tactfully,  and  do  his  work  quietly  and  unostentatiously,  but 
effectively.  Some  day  the  public  will  appreciate  how  important  his 
work  is,  and  then  the  inspector  and  the  inspection  business  will 
receive  the  respect  they  deserve. 


THE  OSBORN  ENGINEERING  CO.  H  SHOP  MEMORANDUM. 


17 


c n 

C 

;>> 

i_ 

O 

0 

a; 

0 

d 

> 

c n 

03 

<u 

'X 

<L> 

U 

<-G 

0 

a3 

l-i 

tl 

< 

£ 

'0 

<D 

VJ 

a 

% 

03 

Oh 

O 

W 

£ 

in 

0 

0^ 

Remarks 


i8 


O 


ON 

CO 


6 

£ 


<u 

>H  O 

O  H 


\ 


19 


D 


Uate . . . . . . Inspector . 

Mill . . 

Contract . 

Order  No . . : . 

Blow  or  Cast . Furnace  Heat . 

Ingot . Slab . Piece. . 

Test  cut  from . 

Dims . 

Elas.  Lim^.. 

Ult.  Str . 

Elong.  in... 

Red.  Dims  . . 

Red.  Area: . Per  ct . 

Fracture^ . . 

Cold  Bend . . . 

Quench  Bend. . 

Drift  Test . . 

C . Ph . Mn . Sul . Si. 

Acc.  or  Rej., . 

Remarks . 


...Area.. 
Per  □  " 
Per  □  ", 
Per  ct.. 


port  of  Tests  of . Manufactured  by 


20 


d 

O 


o 

£ 


o 

a 


a> 


04 


o 

U  CU 
<V  o  <v 

&  Uh 


>  js  .2  a 


o 

'cn  3  «i  — 
C 

V  ra 

c  E  S' 


C  £  4-> 

e  h  w 

3  a> 

ts  y 

3  tuO 


V.  Vi 

o  o 

2  £ 

rt  ,2 

Q  M 


:  a  o 

W)  _  :  r  ;  3  c  tl  « 

^  £  3  w  :  ©  §  rt  "2  ^  .5 
-  ,4  c  S<  .2£.S2  a  ^ 

X&Q<£i<:Z  •«<  *  — 5 

©•g~'=S*’t 


buC^O 

o  .S  c 

s-fS 


IfehOOWUDSwa^^cuouaOu 


O  C  >- 

*5  rt  3 
O*  b£ .c 

o  53 
•CiS  3 
PhSc/j 


Pi  tn 

o  « 
d  a 

O  4J 

<Cpi 


We  certify  that  the  above- described  tests  were  carefully  made.  THE  OSBORN  ENGINEERING  CO. 

Tested  by .  By . 


The  following  material  has  been  inspected  at. 


■  2; 


O  -m 


Lu 


o 

H 


21 


o 

a 

CD 

& 

bJO 

a 

‘a 

3 

S 

cn 


c 

<d 

£ 

3 

IS 

m 

o 

3 

rt 

Q 


o 


o 

L_l 

o 

T3 

cu 

a; 

a 

a 

3 

3 

IS 

IS 

C/} 

in 

O  o 
cu 


s  ° 


o 


•g  S 

l.  0> 
3  « 
CL 


L  O 
1)  >7 
r/i 


REPORT  OF  MATERIAL  RECEIVED 
At  the  Shops  of. . 


22 


Span,  j  Location  in  Structure. 


23 


O 

£ 

£  o 

o  & 
£  * 


x 

CO 


X 
O  ° 

cd 

PH  Oh 

X  o 

o  ^ 

CL,  a; 

W  ■£ 

04  s 

O 

Vh 

X 


<v 

> 

o 

J3 

'V 

cti 

(V 

■ ,  , 

o 

o 

a, 

X 

<u 

u 

aJ 

#b/D 

'5 

>, 

rt 

'V 

£ 

xn 

3 

q 

0 

03 

*> 

a3 

o 

p 

>_ 

O 

H 

CU 

h 

o 

u 

o 

X 

•d  m 

<u  W 

u  W 
<u 

Oh  S 

cd  7j 

c  o 
T  X 
^  w 

.3 

X 

o 

CQ 
CO 

O 

CD 

js  w 

2  x 

.5  H 


>> 

CQ 


(j 

CD 

cu 

T3 

<£> 
> 
O 
-Q 
a 5 

<D 

4= 


O 

2  a 
t;  <u 
8  6 
&  s* 

^  -5 

bO  w 

.5  o 
.1  5 
5)  Q 


a;  <u  o 

Qh  aX 

a  Oh  , 
J3  *G  a 
CO  CO  U 


We  certify  that  the  above-described  material  has  been  carefully  inspected. 


From  Material  Rolled  by 


24 


TOTAL  ELONGATION 


Nominal  Section . Actual  Section .  ACTUAL  AREA 

Elastic  Limit;  Gauge . Actual .  .  LBS.  PER  SQ.  IN, 

Ult.  Strength  ;  Gauge . Actual .  . LBS.  PER  SO.  IN, 


25 


H 

Z 

u 

o 

a 

u 

Cl 


H 

Z 

u 

o 

CL 

u 

Cl 


Z 

© 

H 

© 

© 

UJ 


<v 

W 

o 


THE  OSBORN  CO.,  Civil  Engineers. 


Report  of  Tests  of  Cast  Iron  Manufactured  by . 

por . Order  for. 

Reported  to .  . 


26 


o 

55 


o 

£ 

.a 

o 


<D 

& 


O' 

00 


Q 

5w 

Htfi 

c/3W 

Ua- 

W 

sc 


g'g 

$  O 


U  fio 

o.S 


a-) 
if 1 


o 

u 

o 

g 

w 

w 

g 

o 
£ 
d  W 

T3 

gs 

r* 

^  Vi 

%  O 

u 

a;  w 
£  K 
£  H 


CJ 

C/3 

<u 

TJ 

<U 

> 

o 

a 

<v 


>> 

QQ 


.a 

<L> 

C/3 

<U 

H 


> 

a: 

< 

a 


o 


4f2f“Each  employe  is  to  fill  out  this  form,  day  by  day,  giving  complete  description  in  detail  of  the  kind  of  work  done,  at  what  place  and  time  spent.  He 
is  a’so  to  state  in  detail  what  moneys  he  has  expended  on  this  Company’s  account,  and  for  what  purpose.  At  the  end  of  the  period  noted  hereon  this  sheet  must 
be  turned  into  the  Cleveland  office,  giving  a  complete  diary  and  statement  of  time  and  expense  for  the  period. 


. 


\ 


